7
7
0
Posted in these groups: 
2nd Amendment
Riots
2nd Amendment Riots
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
Nothing more than vigilantes. If the cops would stop killing black people, they would be totally unnecessary.
(1)
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
Maj John Bell - They invite violence by being where they are, armed as they are. Just being there shows they are NOT reluctant participants.
There is a thing called "systemic racism". That means that racism is part of the system. The black officers were charged because they were complicit, not because they acted directly to cause his death. The presence of a black officer does not remove the racism inherent in the system, or the racism of the offending officer.
There is a thing called "systemic racism". That means that racism is part of the system. The black officers were charged because they were complicit, not because they acted directly to cause his death. The presence of a black officer does not remove the racism inherent in the system, or the racism of the offending officer.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
SGT Edward Wilcox - I would say that they discourage violence just by being there.
Once again the standard is not that they must prove they are a reluctant participant to carry, only to use deadly force. And reluctant participant actually has a legal meaning:
This stipulation in the law ensures that someone can’t start a fight then shoot the other person because they were “losing.” What it means: in a deadly force situation, you cannot be seen as the aggressor. That is, you must not be the person who started or escalated the conflict to the point where deadly force became necessary.
Source: https://www.minnesotaccw.com/blog/legal-use-of-force-in-mn
I'm sorry but in my opinion your automatic assumption that a white officer must be a racist if he uses excessive force is no beyond doubt. Maybe Mr. Chauvin is a racist, maybe he isn't, but so far you've pursued logical fallacies.
An ad hominem fallacy: Ad hominem is Latin for “against the man.” Instead of advancing good sound reasoning, an ad hominem replaces logical argumentation with attack-language unrelated to the truth of the matter.
False Dichotomy: This line of reasoning fails by limiting the options to two when there are in fact more options from which to choose.
Circular logic: Circular arguments are also called Petitio principii, meaning “Assuming the initial [thing]” (commonly mistranslated as “begging the question”). This fallacy is a kind of presumptuous argument where it only appears to be an argument. It’s really just restating one’s assumptions in a way that looks like an argument.
Hasty Generalization: a general statement without sufficient evidence to support it.
Red Herring Fallacy (ignoratio elenchi): a distraction from the argument typically with some sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic.
Causal Fallacy: non causa pro causa ("not the-cause for a cause") fallacy, which is when you conclude about a cause without enough evidence to do so.
Once again the standard is not that they must prove they are a reluctant participant to carry, only to use deadly force. And reluctant participant actually has a legal meaning:
This stipulation in the law ensures that someone can’t start a fight then shoot the other person because they were “losing.” What it means: in a deadly force situation, you cannot be seen as the aggressor. That is, you must not be the person who started or escalated the conflict to the point where deadly force became necessary.
Source: https://www.minnesotaccw.com/blog/legal-use-of-force-in-mn
I'm sorry but in my opinion your automatic assumption that a white officer must be a racist if he uses excessive force is no beyond doubt. Maybe Mr. Chauvin is a racist, maybe he isn't, but so far you've pursued logical fallacies.
An ad hominem fallacy: Ad hominem is Latin for “against the man.” Instead of advancing good sound reasoning, an ad hominem replaces logical argumentation with attack-language unrelated to the truth of the matter.
False Dichotomy: This line of reasoning fails by limiting the options to two when there are in fact more options from which to choose.
Circular logic: Circular arguments are also called Petitio principii, meaning “Assuming the initial [thing]” (commonly mistranslated as “begging the question”). This fallacy is a kind of presumptuous argument where it only appears to be an argument. It’s really just restating one’s assumptions in a way that looks like an argument.
Hasty Generalization: a general statement without sufficient evidence to support it.
Red Herring Fallacy (ignoratio elenchi): a distraction from the argument typically with some sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic.
Causal Fallacy: non causa pro causa ("not the-cause for a cause") fallacy, which is when you conclude about a cause without enough evidence to do so.
Using A Firearm For Self Defense In Minnesota
Know the law if you have to defend yourself. This is a brief review of Minnesota Self Defense / Gun Law
(0)
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
Maj John Bell Despite what you may think, I do understand what you are saying. However, since you are too busy explaining to listen, let me spell out my point. I never said they were wrong for carrying. You are the only one fixated on that point. They are wrong for thinking they have a right to pick up the slack for the police. That is called vigilantism. Intent is also a legal term. By showing up armed to the teeth, wearing tactical gear, they are expecting conflict. Doesn't matter if they are the aggressors or not. Just being there shows they are not reluctantly participants in any violence that occurs. I think the officer is a racist because this is not the first time he has killed a person of color in the line of duty. He has a long record of excessive force against minorities. I don't engage in any of the logical fallacies you laid out. I had my reasons for saying what I did.
Having said all that, Fuck You for thinking I'm too stupid to know what a logical fallacy is. By doing so, you have engaged in at least 3 of the fallacies you mentioned. I will leave your sorry ass to decide which 3.
Having said all that, Fuck You for thinking I'm too stupid to know what a logical fallacy is. By doing so, you have engaged in at least 3 of the fallacies you mentioned. I will leave your sorry ass to decide which 3.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
SGT Edward Wilcox - It was not my intent to insult you. I sincerely apologize.
I don't think they are necessarily expecting conflict. The one gentleman on the right points out at some point that someone is burning a truck. None of the four men give any indication they are going to advance to engage. If you listen carefully both of the two "vigilantes" support justice for Mr. Floyd. And what tactical gear? They have firearms and magazine pouches.
Presence, and the potential for violence do not meet bar for proof that they are not reluctant participants. The language was pulled from a web page of a company that provides firearm safety instruction in Minnesota, that is certified by Minnesota. I trust that the explanation they give is not pulled from thin air, rather it is most likely pulled from Minnesota case law.
In the other incident you refer to, Wayne Reyes, the man who died, fled from officers in a high speed pursuit after stabbing two people in a domestic assault. When he was stopped, he pulled a shotgun and pointed it at the officers. Six officers were present and six officers felt it was necessary to fire. No charges were filed. There wasn't a public out cry. If you don't want the police to shoot you. Don't point a firearm at them. Do you have additional evidence that the shooting of Mr. Reyes was racially motivated?
As I've stated before, Mr. Chauvin may or may not be a racists, but so far no one has offered convincing evidence. On the other hand there is a pretty strong case that he is a bad police officer.
I don't think they are necessarily expecting conflict. The one gentleman on the right points out at some point that someone is burning a truck. None of the four men give any indication they are going to advance to engage. If you listen carefully both of the two "vigilantes" support justice for Mr. Floyd. And what tactical gear? They have firearms and magazine pouches.
Presence, and the potential for violence do not meet bar for proof that they are not reluctant participants. The language was pulled from a web page of a company that provides firearm safety instruction in Minnesota, that is certified by Minnesota. I trust that the explanation they give is not pulled from thin air, rather it is most likely pulled from Minnesota case law.
In the other incident you refer to, Wayne Reyes, the man who died, fled from officers in a high speed pursuit after stabbing two people in a domestic assault. When he was stopped, he pulled a shotgun and pointed it at the officers. Six officers were present and six officers felt it was necessary to fire. No charges were filed. There wasn't a public out cry. If you don't want the police to shoot you. Don't point a firearm at them. Do you have additional evidence that the shooting of Mr. Reyes was racially motivated?
As I've stated before, Mr. Chauvin may or may not be a racists, but so far no one has offered convincing evidence. On the other hand there is a pretty strong case that he is a bad police officer.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google